Comparing The Precariat: The New And Dangerous Class, By Guy Standing

1039 Words3 Pages

Political Science Review The Precariat - Guy Standing, G. (2014). The Precariat. The. In The Precariat: The New and Dangerous Class. “The Precariat: The new and Dangerous Class” written by Guy Standing in 2014 is a critical analysis of socioeconomic class developments in the face of the neoliberal policies and globalization in the creation of a new class: the Precariat. This review will be split up into two parts: the first summarising and analysing the first chapter and the second to deconstruct and criticise key elements of improvement. The first chapter is divided into nine parts, excluding the introduction and conclusion. There, he describes the emergence of the precariat class as a result of the neoliberal economic paradigm, which prioritises …show more content…

Economic changes created seven new classes, with the precariat ranking as the third most insecure, trailing only the unemployed and social misfits in terms of labor, employment, job, work, skill reproduction, income, and representation security. Precariats lack a permanent work identity and job security, and they feel estranged from conventional labor communities as a result of forced job flexibility, which pushes them into precarity. While there is variation among the precariat, he compares them to denizens, citizens who have lost one or more rights, such as civil, cultural, social, economic, or political, forcing them into precarious employment situations in which false promises of social advancement push them to self-exploitation. Precaritization refers to the process by which people are forced into precarious frameworks without a stable identity or a sense of development. This process is accomplished through a variety of paths. In Japan, precarious dependency stems from extremely steady employment with enormous rewards inside a paternalistic work model, making it …show more content…

Nonetheless, certain aspects warrant a critical evaluation. Despite being adept at outlining the creation and ramifications of the precariat, standing occasionally falters in grounding his points in concrete social contexts. It is unclear how much he will elucidate on this in coming chapters, but the introduction would have benefited from connections to societal events, historical contexts and political occurrences to visualize his theoretical concepts. For example, despite his emphasis on globalization's importance in the seen changes, he barely refers to growing economies that underwent this change in particular, like China or India. India would not only have been relevant with their significant increase in temporary or “gig” work, but also in reference to one of the named precariat groups: call centers, which has grounded itself deeply in India’s economy. This is a reoccurring problem, as his overreliance on theoretical abstraction, seen in the lack of evidence and contextualization, which he blames on the vagueness of defining who and how many are part of the precariat. Standing dismissal of terms like “working class” and “proletariat” as “little more than eco-friendly labels”, which leaves a gap in truly understanding the difference between working class and

Open Document